The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 6 · Chapter 31
CHAP. 31. A ſummary Anſwer to the examples poſteriour to the IV. Univerſal Council, brought by the Cardinal in his thirty fourth Chapter.
IN the end with Gods aſſiſtance we are come in the deduction of the Hiſtory of Papacy as far as the year of the Lord 451. and the ſitting of the fourth Univerſal Council, which is the term that Cardinal du Perron had ſet unto himſelf, taking the Fathers of the time of the firſt four Univerſal Councils, for his Judges. But eſteeming not his cauſe made ſtrong enough by the hiſtory of thoſe times, he goeth further, and brings examples of the Popes power over the Biſhops of Conſtantinople, from the laſt Council to Cyriacus and John Biſhops of Conſtantinople, who lived in the end of the ſixth Age. He brings alſo the examples of Acacius, Macedonius, John, Anthimus, Patriarchs of Conſtantinople, over which the Biſhop of Rome made uſe of his power, or that were puniſht by him, or that have yielded obedience to him. He adds, that the Biſhop of Pataria in Lycia ſaith, that Sylverius was Pope over all the earth: That Pope(a)Lib. 7. Epiſt. 63. Gregory the firſt in an Epiſtle ſaith that the Church of Conſtantinople was ſubject unto the Apoſtolick See.
It were an eaſie task to ſhew that of theſe examples ſome are falſe, ſome to no purpoſe. For example(b)Pag. 137. Evagrius, l. 3. cap. 18. in chap. 25. he alledgeth Evagrius ſaying, that Felix Biſhop of Rome ſent to Acacius a ſentence of depoſition. But he forgets to add that which Evagrius addeth, that(c)foreign. Acacius rejected that as a thing done againſt the Canons. Beſides Evagrius giveth no credit to that ſtory, as reported by one Zacharias, (d)foreign.who (ſaith he) was ignorant of all that was done in that matter, and related that which he had but ſuperficially heard. It muſt be conſidered alſo, that Italy being then poſſeſt by the Heruls, and ſince by the Oſtrogoths, the Pope had changed Maſter, and was no more ſubject to the Emperours of Conſtantinople. Wherefore he began to ſpeak more boldly to the Emperour, and maſterfully to the Patriarchs of Conſtantinople, who alſo anſwered him with the like liberty. And while the Emperour upheld the Patriarchs of Conſtantinople, they deſpiſed the cenſures and arrogant words of the Roman Biſhops. And at the ſame time the Emperour Leo, Martian's ſucceſſor, made the forementioned Law, that the Patriarch of Conſtantinople ſhould have the precedence before all, and that the Church of Conſtantinople ſhould be the firſt of the world.
It was alſo in that time(e)An. 481. that the Biſhops of Aſia, having (by the force and conſtraint which the Tyrant Baſilicus uſed with them) ſubſcribed to the condemnation of the Council of Chalcedon, preſented a petition to Acacius Patriarch of Conſtantinople, not to the Biſhop of Rome, beſeeching him to forgive them their offence. This Acacius in the year 479. created Stephen Patriarch of Antioch by his ſingle authority, without communing with the other Patriarchs about it, or with the Roman Pope.
At the ſame time alſo Acacius depoſed Calendion from the Patriarchat of Antioch, and eſtabliſht in it a pernicious man, called Peter (f)foreign.the Fuller.
The ſame Acacius born by the Emperours favour miſuſed the Biſhops of Rome. For Felix the Roman Prelat having aſſembled a Council of Italian Biſhops condemned Acacius, not as an heretick, but as polluted with the communion of hereticks. But Acacius cauſed the bearers of that ſentence to be apprehended, ſome of which were killed, ſome impriſoned, as Nicephorus (g)Lib. 16. c. 16. & 17. Liberatus, c. 18.relateth. And he cauſed the name of Felix to be put out of the Diptycha, as we related before.
Acacius being dead, his ſucceſſors Flavitas and Euphemius preſerved his memory with honour, and would have his name regiſtred in the Diptychs, and ſolemnly read in the Church; which ſo angred Felix, and his ſucceſſors Gelaſius and Hormiſdas, that they excommunicated all the Oriental Orthodox Churches, becauſe they honoured the memory of Acacius. Whereupon(h)Baron. an. 493. §. 8, 9. & 16. & 17. Euphemius commanded Gelaſius, as his ſubject, to appear before the See of Conſtantinople, to give an account of his actions. That injury Gelaſius bore with admirable patience.
This is that Gelaſius who in the ſecond Diſtinction(i)Ca. Comperimus. ſaith, that to take the bread without the cup in the Euchariſt is a great ſacriledge: Of which Canon we ſhall ſay more in the proper place.
This is that Gelaſius who in the Decree about the Apocrypha's ſaith,(k)Romana Eccleſia non habens maculam, neque rugam nec aliud hujuſmodi. that the Roman Church is that Church which hath neither ſpot nor wrinkle, Epheſ. 5.27. falſly aſcribing to the Roman Church, that which the Apoſtle ſaith of the Univerſal Church of Gods elect; for in earth there is no viſible ſociety without ſome imperfection.
This is that Gelaſius, who in the Commonitory or inſtruction which he gives to his Legat Fauſtus, ſaith, that(l)Non mirum ſi iſti ſedem Beati Petri Apoſtoli blaſphemare praeſumunt, &c. & nos inſuper ſuperbos eſſe pronunciant. the Greek Churches blaſphemed againſt St. Peters See, and accuſed the Biſhops of Rome of pride; and in the ſame commonitory declareth, that the Biſhop of Rome cannot give abſolution to the dead, becauſe it is written,(m)Super terram inquit nam in hac legatione defunctum nunquam dixit abſolvi. That which thou ſhalt looſe on earth, not under the earth; condemning his ſucceſſors that give indulgences to the dead, and fetch ſouls out of Purgatory. In the book of the Tax of the Apoſtolical Chancery theſe words are found,(n)Pro mortuo excommunicatio pro quo ſupplicant conſanguinci litera abſolutionis venit ducato uno Ca…ol. 9. For a dead man excommunicated, for whom his kindred ſupplicate, the letter of abſolution is ſold for one ducat and nine pence.
This is that Gelaſius who in the ſame Commonitory ſaith,(o)Quod non tantum Praeſuli Apoſtolico facere licet ſed cuicunque Pontifici ut quoſlibet & quemlibet locum ſecundum regulam haereſeos ipſius ante damnatae à Catholica communione diſcernant. it is not only lawfull for the Biſhop of Rome to excommunicate one heretical Biſhop of what place ſoever he be, but that it is alſo lawfull for any other Biſhop: thereby confuting all the examples of condemnations and excommunications of Biſhops out of the Roman Patriarchat, made by the Biſhop of Rome, whereby the Cardinal goeth about to prove the Popes primacy. And indeed the ſame Gelaſius in his Epiſtle to the Biſhops of Dardania, ſpeaking of the excommunication of Acacius, ſaith not that the Biſhop of Rome hath cut him off from the communion of the Church, but that he(p)Acacium à ſua communione removit & multi modis tranſgreſſorem à ſua ſocietate ſecit alienum. hath rejected or ſeparated him from his communion, and removed him from his ſociety. That is, he had declared that he would communicate no more with Acacius; who notwithſtanding the excommunication pronounced by the Biſhop of Rome, enjoyed ſtill the communion of the Church, and poſſeſt his Patriarchat peaceably, and fulminated againſt the Biſhop of Rome, whom without queſtion he had overthrown, ſo powerfull was this Acacius, if Rome had then been in the Roman Emperours power. But the Goths reigned at Rome at that time, who acknowledged not the Emperour.
This Gelaſius in chap. 12. of the firſt Epiſtle, following the example of his predeceſſors,(q)Ʋt praeter Paſchale tempus vel Pentecoſtes nèmo baptizare praeſumat. forbids baptizing at any other time but Eaſter and Whitſuntide. A certain proof that he held not baptiſm to be neceſſary for ſalvation. Wherefore the preſent Roman Church rejecting that rule, baptizeth at all times. Before they hold Baptiſm neceſſary to ſalvation, in ch. 11. of the ſame Epiſtle, he proveth that the Laws of the Roman Church ought to be followed, becauſe it is written (at leaſt as he alledgeth it) Ordain charity towards me, and go about Sion, and embrace it, and tell the towers thereof. Which are concluding proofs and jolly reaſons: Are they not?
The ſame Gelaſius in the Tome of the bond of Anathema diſputes againſt the authority of Univerſal Councils, againſt the Council of Chalcedon eſpecially, upon which he beſtoweth many ill words. And the reaſon he giveth, why he will not have all that is preſcribed by Univerſal Councils to be received, is(r)Quid enim? quia in libris ſanctis quos utique veneramur & ſequimur, quoniam quorundam illic & profanitates eſſe feruntur, & ſcelera geſta narrantur id o nobis pariter aut veneranda ſunt, aut ſequenda, quia in ſanctis libris continentur? that even in the holy Scripture many prophane and wicked actions are recorded, which we muſt neither reſpect nor follow. Wherefore his judgement is, that of Univerſal Councils, and of Scripture likewiſe, the good be kept, and the evil rejected: And to exalt himſelf, not only above the Univerſal Councils, but above Scripture, he diſputes againſt Jeſus Chriſt for ſaying, that to thoſe that blaſpheme againſt the Holy Ghoſt it ſhall not be forgiven, neither in this world nor in the other. And pronounceth a contrary judgement in theſe words,(ſ)Notandū quod quolibet genere blaſphemantibus in Spiritum ſanctum ſi reſipiſcant & corrigant & hic & in futuro ſaeculo remittetur. Note that to all that blaſpheme againſt the Holy Ghoſt in any ſort, if they repent and amend, it ſhall be forgiven both in this world and in that which is to come. In the ſame place he gives many examples of perſons to whom it was forgiven, after they had blaſphemed againſt the Holy Ghoſt. And by divers proofs he endeavors to ſhew, that all that holy Scripture ſaith, is not alwayes accompliſhed.
The ſame being angry, becauſe the Emperor had reſtored Peter of Alexandria, and abſolved him from the crimes laid to his charge, ſaith, that(t)Ʋt & Chriſtiani Imperatores pro aeterna vita Pontificibus indigerent, & Pontifices pro temporalium curſu rerum imperialibus diſpoſitionibus uterentur, &c. & ideo militans Deo minime ſe negotiis ſaecularibus implicaret. God hath ordained that Emperours ſhould have need of Popes to have eternal life: and that Popes ſhould make uſe of the Imperial Laws for temporal things, and ſhould not meddle with ſecular matters. For then the Biſhops of Rome, though puft up with pride, were not yet Princes, and did not meddle with the affairs of Empires and Kingdoms. And indeed in the forealledged Commonitory he ſaith,(u)Et ego nulla ipſius ſcripta unquā percipiens honorificis eū literis ſalutare curaverim. that having written to the Emperour letters full of reſpect, the Emperour never honoured him ſo much as to anſwer him; for he made little account of this Gelaſius, and laughed at his pride.
By the ſame Commonitory it appears how ſmall was the Roman Biſhops authority in Greece and in the Eaſt, when he ſaith that Calendion Patriarch of Antioch was expelled without his advice, and that the Greek Churches, that is, the Patriarchs of Conſtantinople, had been ſo bold, as to(x)Qua traditione majorum Apoſtolicam ſedem in judicium vocant? cite the Biſhop of Rome to judgement to juſtifie himſelf before the Patriarchs See.
This ſame Gelaſius in an Epiſtle to the Emperor Anaſtaſius ſpeaks with an arrogant humility, mingled with impiety. For after he hath exalted his Primacy, to which he will have all men to be ſubject, he addeth,(y)Quapropter ſub conspectu Dei purè ac ſincerè pietatem tuam deprecor obteſtor & exhortor ut petitionem meam non indignanter accipias: Rogo, inquam, ut me in hac vita potius audias deprecantem quam (quos abſit) in divino judicio ſentias accuſantem. Therefore in the preſence of God, I beſeech your piety, with purity and ſincerity, and adjure and exhort you, that you receive my petition without indignation: I beſeech you (I ſay) that you rather hear me petitioning to you in this life, then to have me (which God forbid) your accuſer in judgement before God. It is to be feared that this Pope ſhall have ſo much to do to anſwer for himſelf, that he ſhall want leiſure to accuſe others. With the like pride in the Epiſtle to the Biſhops of Dardania he puts himſelf in the place of Chriſt, ſpeaking thus of himſelf, He that is not with me is againſt me, and he that gathereth not with me ſcattereth abroad, Matth. 12. That pride made this Gelaſius odious to the Greek and Oriental Churches. Wherefore he ſaith in the ſame Epiſtle, Yet they perſiſt to call the Apoſtolick See proud and arrogant. For this was the quarrel; Acacius Patriarch of Conſtantinople had fulminated againſt the Biſhops of Rome, and uſed them as his inferiors. Againſt him alſo the Biſhops of Rome had retorted thundering excommunications, which hindered him not from keeping the quiet poſſeſſion of his Patriarchat till death, for the ſpace of ſeventeen years. After his death (which was in the year of Chriſt 488.) the Biſhops of Rome laboured to make his memory odious, and required that the Churches of Greece and Aſia ſhould put the name of Acacius out of the Diptychs, or Eccleſiaſtical tables. But the ſucceſſors of Acacius and the Oriental Churches, did ſo much the more honour and cheriſh his memory: Wherefore the Biſhops of Rome excommunicated all the Churches of the Eaſt; not for any hereſie, but only for the name of a dead man, whoſe memory the Patriarchs would not diſgrace, by racing his name out of their tables. For ſuch a ſmall matter ſo many millions of perſons of the ſame faith and Religion as the Roman Church, that were no cauſes of this quarrel, have been for the ſpace of near fourty years ſeparated from the Communion of the Church of Rome. And our adverſaries hold, that all that are dead in all the Empire of the Eaſt during that time are eternally damned; The Biſhops of Rome, of which this Gelaſius is one, rather chooſing that all theſe millions of ſouls ſhould periſh, then to ſuffer the name of Acacius to ſtand in a regiſter. Was that the part of a good Paſtor and Father of the Church, that hath a tenderneſs for the ſalvation of ſouls? Therefore the Eaſtern Churches accuſed Gelaſius of pride, and deteſted his arrogance: So far, that Euphemius Patriarch of Conſtantinople commanded the Biſhop of Rome to appear before his See to give an account of his actions. Which he did in a bravado, not out of any hope that the Biſhop of Rome ſhould obey his command.
This Gelaſius is the firſt that (remembring the Canons of the Councils of Africa, which forbid Appeals to Rome upon pain of excommunication,Note— and the Canons of Chalcedon, which equal the Biſhops of Conſtantinople with thoſe of Rome, and will have them to judge ſovereignly and without Appeal) renounced all the Canons of the Councils, ſaying that(z)Gelaſii decretum eum 70. Epiſcopis de Scripturis Apocryphis. Sancta Romana Eccleſia nullis Synodicis conſtitutis caeteris Eccleſiis praelata eſt, ſed Evangelico voce Domini tu es Petrus, &c. the Roman Church had her authority, not from any Eccleſiaſtical Canons, but from the only Ordinance of Chriſt, which yet is no where found; for neither Chriſt nor his Apoſtles ever ſpoke of Peters ſucceſſion, nor of the primacy of the Church of Rome. Yet by theſe words he renounceth that Eccleſiaſtical Canon which Julius the firſt would uſe, and the Canons of Sardica which the Cardinal keeps ſuch a coyl with.
I did a little extend upon this Gelaſius, who was Biſhop in the year of Chriſt 495. becauſe he ſpoke with more arrogance then any of his predeceſſors, and that the Reader, obſerving the progreſs of the myſterie of iniquity, may acknowledge that all that pride which then did riſe, is nothing in compariſon of that which happened ſince. For the Popes did not ſpeak as yet of giving and taking away Kingdoms, nor of degrading Emperors, nor of drawing ſouls out of Purgatory, nor of Canonizing Saints, nor of forbidding the people to read Scripture, nor of denying the cup in the Euchariſt unto the people, nor of giving his feet to kiſs, nor of cauſing himſelf to be adored, nor of calling himſelf God, nor of giving a hundred thouſand years of pardon. Of tripple Crown, of infallibility in the faith, and of a Colledge of Cardinals there was no ſpeech yet in thoſe dayes.
To reſume now the hiſtory from the time(a)Theod. Lector. Collect. l. 2. of this Gelaſius, The authority of the Patriarchs of Conſtantinople was ſo great at that time, that the Patriarch Euphemius threatened the Emperor Anaſtaſius to hinder him from being Emperor, unleſs he promiſed in writing to embrace the Catholick Faith. But Anaſtaſius being confirmed in the Empire, turned out that Euphemius, and gave him Macedonius for ſucceſſor, who alſo favoured the memory of Acacius, in ſpite of the Biſhops of Rome. And for that only reaſon (ſo prodigious was the ambition and the hatred of thoſe Prelats) the Roman Church was ſeparated in communion from the Greek and Oriental.
That Schiſm laſted till the Emperor Juſtin; who in the year 518. being deſirous of concord, and delighting beſides to depreſs the Patriarchs of Conſtantinople who grew too great, made the Patriarch John to agree with Hormiſdas Biſhop of Rome, and the name of Acacius to be put out of the Diptychs, together with the names of Euphemius and Macedonius, as of abominable and damned perſons; although theſe two laſt had ſuffered hard perſecutions under the heretick Emperor Anaſtaſius, for the defence of the true doctrine.
But the Churches of the Eaſt (among whom the memory of Euphemius and Macedonius was precious, as of faithful defendors of the truth) choſe rather to be without the Communion of the Roman Church, then to race their names out of the Church tables, and diſgrace their memory after their death. Only John Patriarch of Conſtantinople, to obey the Emperor, put out their names out of the Church tables of Conſtantinople, and put in the names of Leo and Hormiſdas Biſhops of Rome, which had been put out before. Baronius brings an Epiſtle of that Hormiſdas, where he giveth a reaſon why he remained firm in denying to receive the Oriental Churches to his Communion, before thoſe names that offended him were blotted out of the Diptychs; His reaſon is, becauſe it is written, None that puts his hand to the plough, and looketh back, is fit for the Kingdom of God.
In the year of Chriſt 523. dyed Hormiſdas, John ſucceeded him, who was ſent Embaſſadour to the Emperour Juſtin by King Theodorick, to intercede for the Arians, whom Juſtin had deprived of their Churches. But when he returned, the King put him to death in priſon, becauſe he had not executed that Embaſſie to his mind.
Athalarick ſucceeded Theodorick in the Kingdom of Italy, who made a Law which is to be ſeen in Caſſiodorus, (b)Variarum l. 9. Epiſt. 15. ad Johan. Papam. Quicunque in Epiſcopatu obtinendo ſive per ſe, ſive per aliam quamcunque perſonam aliquid promiſiſſe declaratur, ut excrabilis contractus, &c. ſacrilegii reus protinus habeatur accepta reſtituens compulſione judicis competentis.in the Epiſtle of Athalarick to Pope John, whereby he decreeth that the Biſhops of Rome for their entry, pay to the Kings coffers three thouſand crowns, and the other Prelats two thouſand, and forbids Simony and factions to enter into the Epiſcopacy; and commands that who ſo will enter by ſuch wayes be declared execrable, and puniſht by competent Judges. In the following Epiſtle he commands Salvantius Prefect of the City to write that Law in Marble, and ſet it before the Biſhop of Rome's houſe. Juſtinian who a little after reconquered Italy, (c)Novel. 123. c. 3. Jubemus beatiſſimos Archiepiſcopos & Patriarchas hoc eſt ſeniores Conſtantinopoleos & Alexandriae, & Theopoleos, & Jeroſolymorū ſiquidem conſuetudo habet Epiſcopis aut Clericis non minus quam viginti libras auri dari, &c.continued that Law, taxing every Patriarch in twenty pounds weight of gold for his reception.
After Athalarick, Theodatus raigned, who ſent Agapetus Biſhop of Rome Embaſſadour to the Emperour Juſtinian, who made uſe of him to depoſe Anthimus Biſhop of Conſtantinople; which is more then Agapetus could have done without the ſtrength and authority of the Emperour. In the ſame manner as Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria being come to Conſtantinople, and there upheld by the authority of the Emperour Arcadius, depoſed John Chryſoſtom from his place. Which authority Peter of Alexandria would have uſed a little before towards Gregory Nazianzen Biſhop of Conſtantinople. And it was ſo that Acacius made and unmade the Patriarchs of Antioch, as we have ſeen.
This Emperour Juſtinian is he that cauſed the body of the civil Law to be made up. The Code and Novels of the ſame have ſeveral Laws and conſtitutions about the Chriſtian faith and Eccleſiaſtical policy, wherein he giveth abſolute commands to the Clarks, and uſeth ſoveraign power and authority towards the Biſhops, without excepting the Clergy, or ſparing the Biſhop of Rome. For example, in the firſt book of the Code, there is a title, De Epiſcopis & Clericis, Of Biſhops and Clarks, where in the Law Generaliter ſancimus, he ſpeaks thus to the Biſhops, Prieſts, and Deacons,(d)Ex hoc non ſolum vel in vetere Roma vel in hac regia civitate ſed & in omni terra ubicunque Chriſtianorum nomen colitur ſancimus. We decree that this be obſerved, not only in the old Rome, or in this Royal City of Conſtantinople, but alſo over all the earth where the Chriſtian name is honoured. And his Laws ſubject the Clarks to the penalties attending the Civil Laws, as much as the reſt of the people. Thus in the ſame title, the Law Presbyteri ſpeaks thus, Prieſts and Deacons, if they be convicted to have born falſe teſtimony, if it be in a pecuniary cauſe, let them be ſuſpended from the ſacred Miniſtery for three years only, and ſhut up in a Monaſtery to be tormented. But if it be a criminal cauſe, let him be deveſted of the honour of the Clergy, and puniſht legally. But let the other Clarks be by the common Law put by their Eccleſiaſtical Offices, and chaſtened with rods, without diſtinction. In the Code and among the Authenticks of that Emperour there is a great number of thoſe Laws.
Upon this Baronius An. 528. labouring to excuſe the Emperour in ſome ſort, yet ſaith that(f)Baron. An. 528. ſect. 2. Dum ſacrarum legum conditorem agit de ſacerdotibus leges ferre in eoſque poenas ſtatuere praeter jus faſque praeſumere. Sect. 6. & 7. Cum opus eſſet ab authoritatem habente erudiri jam ſenex imprudens in haereſis barathrum ſeſe praecipitem dedit. Vetus eſt Regum morbus, &c. againſt right and reaſon he preſumed to do the part of a builder of ſacred Laws, and to give Laws to Biſhops, and lay penalties upon them: Yea he comes ſo far as to ſay, that thereby he caſt himſelf headlong into a gulf of hereſie, and that it is the old malady of Kings to be infeſted with that itch of ſeeking to uſurp that which belongeth to Biſhops. But I find not that the Church of that age and the next following blamed Juſtinian for making theſe Laws; wherein he imitated the good Kings, David, Ezekiah, Joſiah, who gave Laws to the ſacerdotal order, and made conſtitutions for Eccleſiaſtical policy. Neither do I find that the very Biſhops of Rome complained that this Emperor undertook to give Laws to the Roman Biſhop and Clergy.(e)Presbyteri ſeu Diaconi ſi falſum teſtimonium perhibuiſſe convincantur, ſiquidem in cauſa pecuni aria, à divino Miniſterio duntaxat per tres annos ſeparati monaſteriis pro tormentis tradantur, &c. For he could not complain of it without accuſing the good Emperours that had been before, as Conſtantine the Great, Valentinian the I. and the two Theodoſii, of whom we have many Eccleſiaſtical Laws in the Theodoſian Code, and in that of Juſtinian.
Among many Laws of that Emperour, two eſpecially diſpleaſe our adverſaries; The 123. Novel in the 3. ch. whereby the Biſhop of Rome is to pay 20. pound weight of gold for the inveſtiture of his Biſhoprick; And the Law which is found in the ſame Novel in the Greek Editions, that the publick ſervice be celebrated with a loud voyce, intelligible unto the people.
As for Menas whom(g)Pag. 147. the Cardinal mentioneth, it is he who in Juſtinians time (as(h)Niceph. l. 17. c. 26. Nicephorus relateth) excommunicated Vigilius Biſhop of Rome for four moneths;(i)Victoris Tunenſis Chronicon. And ſhortly after the ſame Vigilius was excommunicated by the Biſhops of Africa aſſembled in Council.
The Epiſtle of the Biſhop of Patara in Lycia who calls Sylverius Pope of the whole earth, is found in the ſecond Tome of the Councils, which is ſtuffed with falſe and ſuppoſititious Epiſtles. And though that Epiſtle ſhould be true, yet the like things are ſaid of other Patriarchs, as Athanaſius, Meletius, Neſtorius, and others, as we have ſeen; for by theſe words of the whole earth, the Roman Empire is underſtood.
In that time the Biſhops of Conſtantinople ſtyled themſelves Oecumenical, as having the Government of the Churches of all the habitable world. The Council of Conſtantinople held under Menas, gives that title to that Patriarch. And(k)Cod. tit. 1. leg. 7. Juſtinian giveth the ſame title to Epiphanius predeceſſor of Menas. Yea there is in the ſecond Council of Nice an Epiſtle of Adrian Biſhop of Rome to Tharaſius Biſhop of Conſtantinople, where he calleth him Univerſal Biſhop. Wherefore it was with little reaſon that Gregory the firſt took it ſo ill, that Cyriacus and John the Faſter, Patriarchs of Conſtantinople took that title after the example of their Predeceſſors; ſaying, that if one is Univerſal Biſhop the others are no more Biſhops, and there is no more Biſhop but him alone in the world: For the Patriarchs of Conſtantinople meant not thereby to make themſelves the only Biſhops. And if that be true, which Gregory the firſt ſo often repeateth in his Epiſtles, that the Council of Chalcedon offered unto Leo the title of Univerſal Biſhop, is it credible that the Biſhops of that Council offering that title unto Leo, intended thereby to depoſe themſelves, and to put off their Epiſcopacy? Now becauſe the Emperor Mauritius upheld Cyriacus and John Biſhops of Conſtantinople, all the coyl that Gregory the firſt kept about that, turned into ſmoak, and wrought no effect; And Mauritius writ to Gregory that he was a fool to make ſo much noyſe for a word. This Emperor Mauritius being ſlain with his wife and children by a Captain of his Guards called Phocas, Pope Gregory began to flatter that Tyrant, and to commend ſuch an execrable action. For he writ to him, and in his letters ſpake thus to that Monſter;(l)Gregor. Epiſt. lib. 11. Epiſt. 36. Benignitatem pietatis veſtrae ad imperiale faſtigium perveniſſe gaudemus Laetentur coeli, etexcultet terra, & de veſtris benignis actibus univerſae Reip. populus, nunc uſque vehementer afflictus hilareſcat: We rejoyce that the meekneſs of your piety is attained to the Imperial dignity. Let the heavens rejoyce, and let the earth be glad, and let the people of the whole Commonwealth, which hitherto was in deep affliction, rejoyce at your meek actions. But Gregory did not long enjoy the fruit of his abominable flattery; for he dyed ſoon after. As for Phocas, when he could not obtain from his Patriarch the approbation of his parricide, he began to bring him low, and to exalt the Biſhop of Rome; and made a Law, whereby he commanded that the Biſhop of Rome ſhould ſtep before that of Conſtantinople. So much Platina ſaith,(m)Platina in Bonifacio tertio. Bonifacius à Phoca Imperatore obtinuit magna cum contentione, ut ſedes Beati Petri Apoſtoli quae caput eſt omnium aliaerum Eccleſiarum, ita & diceretur & haberetur ab omnibus. Quem quidem locum Eccleſia Conſtantinopolitana ſibi vendicare conabatur. Bonifacius the third, with great ſtriving obtained of the Emperor Phocas that the See of St. Peter the Apoſtle, which is the head of all the Churches, ſhould be called and acknowledged ſuch by all. Which degree the Church of Conſtantinople endeavoured to attribute unto its ſelf. The Reader may obſerve by what wayes the Papal See was advanced.
Yet though the Biſhops of Rome were already very corrupt, and though Satan was then advancing the myſterie of iniquity, yet all their pride and malice was but modeſty and ſimplicity, compared to that height of iniquity which they came to ſome ages after. For this very Gregory ſpeaks to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch as to his equals, and acknowledgeth that he had no authority to command them. In the 30. Epiſtle of the 7. book, he ſpeaks thus to the Biſhop of Alexandria, *Beatitudo veſtra mihi loquitur dicens ſicut juſſiſtis, Quod verbum juſſionis peto à meo auditu removeas quia ſcio quis ſim, & qui eſtis loco enim mihi fratres eſtis, moribus patres. Non ego juſſi ſed quae utilia viſa ſunt indicare curavi.Your beatitude [or bleſſedneſs] ſpeaks to me ſaying [as you have commanded me] Which word of commanding, I beſeech you to put far from mine ears: For I know who I am, and who you are. You are my brethren in degree, and my Fathers in manners. I give you no command, but I have declared to you what I thought to be profitable to you. And in the 5. book, 60. Epiſtle, he ſaith to the ſame Patriarch, that they preſide mutually the one upon the others See, So that (ſaith he) it ſeems that I preſide upon the (n)He meaneth St. Mark.Diſciples See becauſe of the Maſter, and that you preſide upon the Maſters See becauſe of the Diſciple. And in the 37. Epiſtle of the 1. book, exalting the dignity of the three chairs of St. Peter, of Rome, of Alexandria, and of Antioch, he ſaith, that(o)Cum ergo unius atque una ſit ſedes cui ex authoritate divina tres Epiſcopi praeſident, &c. they are but one See, over which three Biſhops preſide by divine authority.
It was then the year 595. And the Biſhops of Rome were not yet temporal Princes, and wore no triple Crown, diſpenſed not from oaths, exacted no adoration nor kiſſing of their feet, took not upon them to degrade Kings, and gave no indulgences. There was no ſpeech then of the treaſure of the Church, where the Pope layeth up the ſuperabounding ſatisfactions of the Saints, to diſtribute them by his indulgences; nor of the Roman ſtations, nor of the tax of the Roman Chancery, where every abſolution of ſin and the diſpenſations are taxed at a certain rate. The Popes then boaſted not that they could not err: They canonized no Saints, and drew no ſouls out of Purgatory. Neither did they oblige the other Biſhops to ſwear fidelity to them in their reception, or to pay them annats and firſt fruits: Theſe things and many more were by degrees introduced by the following ages, and by an inſenſible increaſe, whil'ſt Satan was pouring a thick miſt of ignorance upon the minds of the people, giving them images inſtead of the Word of God, and fables of Legends for the doctrine of the Goſpel.
That then I may not tire the Reader with long and tedious hiſtories, and examine all thoſe which the Cardinal alleadgeth, all poſterior to the fourth Council; I will ſay but three things. The one, that though they were all true, yet they are but examples of things happened within the verge of the Roman Empire; which ſheweth that the Popes greatneſs grew upon the greatneſs of that Empire, but did not exceed the limits of the ſame. Neither did the Pope pretend any right over the Churches of Perſia, Aſſyria, India or Ethiopia.
The ſecond is, that all his proofs are humane, and are wanting in one point, which is to ſhew by the Word of God, that God hath appointed the Biſhop of Rome to be Peters ſucceſſor, in the Office of Head over the Univerſal Church.
The third, that whenſoever the Biſhops of Rome would attribute unto themſelves ſome ſuperiority in Councils, in the time of the four firſt Councils, they never alleadged Scripture for it, or made uſe of Tu es Petrus, Thou art Peter, &c. But only they brought ſome Canons, and thoſe alwayes with ſome falſification; and were alwayes caſt in their ſuit.